P3D Re: to hyphen or not to hyphen

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999
>From: Mike Sanders <mikesanders@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>......................
>Ron Labbe wonders whether one should hyphenate his new hip phrase
>"Stereo 3D."  I think he's on to something here.
>.............
>Ron's suggestion would be "Stereo3D."  This might work were it not for
>"3D," which is really not a word, but shorthand for three(third)
>dimension(al).  And, think of all the trouble a hyphen could cause with
>crossword puzzles.  IMHO, I say no hyphen, and keep the space. (weak
>attempt at humor, IR 1)

*****  Another important point here is that many current search engines
completely ignore search words containing only two letters. If you separate
the words *Stereo 3D* the search will often only look for *Stereo*, or a
search for *3D* comes back empty! Therefore using the two as a combined word
works better. Stereo3D...


>................
>And Ron's right, there needs to be a distinction to separate real 3D
>from the programmers who tack "3D" onto nearly every software
>application.
>


*****  The distinction here is different than what's obvious. Most 3D
software would or could be stereo 3D as well, *if* the programmers had done
a complete job instead of a minimalistic job, which seems to be an industry
(sub-)standard *lack of approach*. The pressure should be on manufacturers
and programmers to acknowledge AND implement the 3D features that are
inherent to 3D based software. In most cases this would be fairly simple to
do but it's sometimes ignored and left out on purpose. Where it's been left
out, the criticism above applies, but the 3D, *our kind of 3D*, is still
there. It's kind of like marketing an RBT camera with only one lens and no
film transport mechanism. There's an equivalent amount of work involved (in
mfg.) and the features inherently exist but are being ignored. The goal of
criticism in this regards should be to make the lacking products look like
an RBT with a missing lens... It needs to look this way to consumers
particularly, as well as mfgs. This is one goal of educating the public.

Here are some of the basic basic things that any *3D* software should
provide if they wish to be true to the terminology... This assumes 3D
software, not photography or image editing per se. In actuallity, most 2D
graphics editors are more friendly to stereo 3D than many 3D applications.
The goal here is to encourage basic *stereo(scopic) friendliness* in
anything claiming to be 3D...

In the user interface areas, allow the user to choose side by side L/R view
windows, in either orientation. Too many 3D programs are designed with a
single view window, or four different views none of which will allow R/L
placement of stereo views (this excludes the user from exercising their own
control). It's simply a matter of reasonable basic design. Leaving out this
basic option, or deliberately restricting operation to one window, should
open any manufacturer claiming *3D*, to an outraged response from their
customers. If they actually do get complaints, they may listen. 

The first issue implies that the program has at least two cameras built
in... A very easy addition to any 3D program, the lack of which should (at
least partially) disqualify their claim to 3D... Multiple cameras are very
useful for much more than viewing in stereo so it's a strong win-win
situation. A 3D program with one camera (or a locked single view) is a
broken program though it can still be used for stereo if you work hard
enough. (if you have crutches, you can walk with a broken leg..  ;-/

Allow the user to adjust the interocular distance as needed.

Allow the cameras to operate as a stereo camera if the user wishes it.

Facilitate rendering of stereo pairs directly (in one rendering operation),
instead of having to do two separate renderings with two set-ups with the
possible introduction of errors of view point, rotation, alignment, scale, etc.

Facilitate saving stereo image renderings as combined L/R image files. This
makes further editing or image work much easier, and keeps the images
together. This facilitates sharing images in a *direct to the internet* fashion.

Include anaglyph viewing options (easy).

Include shutter glasses support (somewhat more involved, but easily do-able)

There could be other possible issues, but these are the primary ones. If
I've left out something equally important, I'm sure others here will add them...

I suggest that anyone interested in this issue, examine any interesting
product claiming to be 3D, and write to the manufacturer about *key missing
elements*. I don't know how many letters it takes to get their attention,
but I'm sure it takes more than two or three... If everyone on P3D got
actively involved in this process it would likely make a difference. One way
to increase the volume of stereo products on the shelf is to convert
existing 3D products to stereo supportive 3D products!

To sum it up, it's not the marketing claim to *3D* that's the problem here.
It's the cyclopean, single eye'd, flat surfaced, narrow minded thinking
patterns inherited from our ancient ancestors, whatever they looked like...
We can rejoice that 3D computer stuff really exists and is a form of true
3D, at the same time that we deplore the (usually) intentional *flattening
of 3D/disuse/disabling of 3D* in many of the final products. Industry has
trained the consumer in undesirable ways. We need to improve the industry
and reshape consumer expectations, not necessarily the terminology... 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3167
***************************